Thank you for your recent report in which you outlined the arguments pro and
con for Brown’s continued participation in the Fair Labor Association
(FLA) and the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC). Your report described the
significant differences of opinion which exist within your committee, and I
found it helpful in understanding both sides of what has become an important
national discussion in higher education.

Assuring that vendors of university-licensed goods adhere to acceptable labor
standards is, after all, a discussion no college or university can or should
ignore. I am pleased that Brown, led by its undergraduates, was among the first
institutions of higher education to engage in the discussion. Brown
undergraduates continue to provide vision and leadership both on our campus and
nationally. I am also pleased that the process here has been cooperative,
forthright, respectful and productive. I want to assure you and all members of the University community that Brown
will remain productively engaged in the sweatshop issue and will continue the
cooperative process that has been so effective in bringing the University to
this point. To that end, I thought it best to respond to your report by
outlining the University’s position on several questions you raised and
then by asking you to continue your involvement and campus leadership in these
issues as a committee.

As a faculty member and former interim provost, I followed the sweatshop
discussion on the Brown campus and elsewhere. As interim president, I have
noticed that the national discussion has taken a disappointing turn. Much of the
energy that once was devoted to understanding and improving the plight of
workers and to exposing abuses within the apparel industry appears to have been
diverted to a struggle between the FLA and the WRC organizations and their
members. In my view, this struggle has not only slowed our momentum, but more
seriously it has the potential for undermining our success in reaching our
ultimate goal.

Your report highlights some of the repeated misgivings about the FLA,
particularly the way it includes corporations as full partners. Its detractors
believe the FLA’s inspection program will be compromised by corporate
involvement, that the FLA board will be unable to make difficult decisions
because corporations will hold nearly half the seats, and that corporations will
be able to use the FLA as a shortcut to certify themselves as compliant whether
or not they are.

I do not intend to dismiss those issues or to treat them
lightly. I do, however, believe they are insufficient grounds for the University
to take the serious step of withdrawing from the FLA at this point. By
participating as an active and outspoken member of the FLA’s University
Advisory Council, Brown has a voice it otherwise would not have, as well as the
opportunity to build coalitions of universities and colleges around particular
issues. These issues may include proposed changes to the FLA’s operations.
I am not persuaded that a withdrawal from the FLA by Brown would create a
significant opportunity to bring about desired change within the FLA, nor do I
believe that Brown could function effectively as an agent of change from outside
the FLA. Brown’s credibility has always derived from our focus on the
substantial issues of exploitation and from our determination to work
productively to end sweatshop abuses. Our credibility rests neither on our
ability to issue ultimatums nor on the threat of our withdrawal. I am convinced
that any leverage we may have for helping shape the future direction of the FLA
emanates from active participation within the process itself.

Whatever flaws the
FLA may have, I cannot disregard the likelihood that it gives universities a
potentially productive avenue for addressing sweatshop concerns and that it may,
in fact, be able to effect positive change within the apparel industry. I am
impressed that the FLA was able to recruit Sam Brown as its executive director.
Mr. Brown’s credentials as an antiwar activist, as a leader in community
service (VISTA and the Peace Corps), as a proponent of low-income housing and as
an ambassador for international peace are unassailable. I also note that the
International Labor Rights Fund, a non-governmental organization affiliated with
the FLA, has already begun a pilot program, with assistance from Brown and other
universities, to train external factory monitors in several Third World
countries. I see neither a strategic advantage nor an improved ethical
perspective in withdrawing from an organization which holds promise for
improving the situation of apparel industry workers.

The FLA and WRC share the same ultimate goal, but they are two very different
organizations. They appear to differ most markedly in their attitudes toward
corporations engaged in the manufacture of apparel. Brown, as you know, is a
charter member of both groups. When Brown joined the WRC, it did so with the
explicit understanding that the FLA and WRC could maintain a clear focus on the
overall goal of protecting the rights of workers who make apparel that bears the
Brown name and symbols. That understanding remains a fundamental element in
Brown’s continued membership in both groups and will be an important part
of our continuing engagement in the sweatshop issue. We do not expect the two
groups to agree on tactics, but we do expect them to focus on their common goal.
I was encouraged to read reports from the WRC convention which indicated a
greater willingness among a portion of the WRC membership to accept dual FLA/WRC
membership among universities. I would ask you as a committee to observe closely
the development of each organization’s programs and to evaluate the effectiveness
of each in effecting positive change on an ongoing basis. Both
organizations are in formative stages and we must be vigilant and proactive to
ensure that what they are doing is in our best interests and consistent with our
values and goals.

In closing, let me reiterate a few points and respond directly to questions
raised in your report.

Brown will remain actively engaged in the sweatshop issue.

Brown will retain its membership in both the FLA and the WRC.

I request that the Code of Conduct Committee continue its critical role of
assessing the University’s efforts with regard to curbing sweatshop
abuses, of advising the president about decisions to be made in this regard, and
of serving as a forum for the study and evaluation of steps the University can
take with regard to sweatshop issues. Toward that end, I have asked Larry Carr
to convene a series of committee meetings before the end of the semester. I
would like the committee to focus especially on developing a strategy for the
administration and me to build alliances with other institutions and to effect
positive results from both the FLA and the WRC.

I am designating Larry Carr, manager of the Brown Bookstore, as the
administration’s official representative to the groups in which Brown
takes an active role.

Brown will continue to press the FLA, as well as its colleagues on the
FLA’s University Advisory Council, to address perceived inadequacies with
regard to monitoring programs, third-party complaint procedures and lack of
transparency, as discussed in your report. Specifically, Brown regards
discussion of an FLA “seal of approval” to be premature.

Brown University remains fully committed to ensuring that all
University-licensed apparel is produced by licensees who respect and abide by
our Code of Conduct. To that end, we will be fully supportive of both the FLA
and WRC and will consider supporting any other consortia which may assist the
University in achieving that goal.

Thank you for your continued hard work and thoughtful consideration of these
complex and important issues.